(SACRAMENTO, CA) – Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) has introduced his fourth housing bill of the session, Assembly Bill (AB) 474, known as the Home Share Act of 2025. This legislation aims to improve housing affordability and alleviate the cost-of-living crisis in California. AB 474 seeks to incentivize nonprofit home-sharing programs that connect homeowners with extra rooms to individuals in need of affordable housing, while also providing legal support and conflict resolution services.
In light of the state’s severe housing shortage and the prevalence of underutilized bedrooms, home-sharing presents a cost-effective solution. The bill specifically targets low-income seniors, helping them manage rising housing costs while allowing homeowners to earn supplemental income and renters to secure affordable accommodations.
“California is facing a housing crisis, yet we have many homes that are underutilized,” stated Assemblymember Ward. “The Home-Sharing Act of 2025 provides a smart, low-cost solution to help seniors and low-income residents remain housed while increasing the availability of affordable rental options. This bill introduces essential incentives to make home-sharing a viable and stable choice for more Californians.”
The Home-Sharing Act of 2025 includes several key provisions designed to make nonprofit home-sharing more accessible and beneficial for both low-income homeowners and renters. Specifically, the bill exempts low-income homeowners from paying income tax on rental earnings, ensures that home-sharing income will not affect eligibility for government assistance programs, strengthens tenant protections, and guarantees the right for home-sharers to have a caregiver move in if necessary. These measures aim to broaden affordable housing options while enhancing financial stability for participants.
“Assemblymember Ward is once again leading the charge against homelessness among older adults. While California grapples with a shortage of housing units, we have a surplus of available bedrooms. Assembly Bill 474 represents a significant step toward preventing homelessness by increasing the availability of bedrooms for rent through home-sharing programs, offering a valuable solution to a pressing issue,” said Jeannee Parker Martin, President & CEO of LeadingAge California, a sponsor of the bill.
We already have an “affordable housing option” for seniors – it’s called Proposition 13.
Locally, I’ve noticed what appears to be “bargain” prices for mobile homes in the very nice mobile home park bordering Pole Line Road. Not sure why they’re so inexpensive.
The other “affordable housing option” that some cities have implemented is called “rent control”.
I asked the fact checker and the verdict on Ron’s solutions seems to be: no.
No, Prop 13 and rent control are not true replacements for affordable housing for seniors, though they both help mitigate housing costs in different ways.
Prop 13 (Property Tax Limits)
• Passed in 1978, Prop 13 caps property tax increases at 1% of a home’s assessed value and limits annual increases to 2%, unless the property is sold.
• This helps seniors who own homes by keeping property taxes predictable and preventing them from being priced out due to rising home values.
• However, it does not help seniors who rent, and it does not create new affordable housing options.
Rent Control
• Some California cities (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles) have rent control policies that limit rent increases for existing tenants.
• This can help seniors who are longtime renters by keeping their housing costs stable.
• But rent control does not apply to all properties, and landlords may find loopholes (e.g., converting units, Ellis Act evictions).
Why These Are Not Enough
Neither Prop 13 nor rent control creates more affordable housing, which is a growing problem for seniors:
• Many seniors don’t own homes and struggle to find affordable rentals.
• Affordable senior housing programs (such as Section 8, LIHTC, and local initiatives) are still needed to address the gap.
• Prop 13 can actually reduce funding for local services, including affordable housing programs, because it limits tax revenue growth.
Bottom Line
Prop 13 and rent control help seniors who are already housed, but they do not solve the affordable housing crisis—especially for lower-income seniors or those looking for new housing options. A true solution would require more investment in dedicated senior housing, subsidies, and zoning reforms to increase supply.
So is this your new way to respond to people?
Ask the fact checker?
So who is this fact checker? AI? You do know that fact checkers and fact check websites can be very biased.
As opposed to citing quotes from governmental officials quoted in Fox News?
When you say that most seniors “don’t own homes”, I’d like to see the statistics on that (at least for California). But again, that’s when rent control will help.
Regarding limitation of the growth of tax revenue, houses are reassessed upon sale. And as a result of Proposition 19 (which was actually a massive tax increase for the children of those seniors), tax revenue will grow more quickly than it has. It will take a few more years for this to become apparent.
But seeking “tax revenue” from seniors IS the problem in the first place. It’s the reason that Proposition 13 was enacted.
Rising property tax in other states is becoming a major issue in regard to the cost of housing.
Regarding “new” housing for seniors – it’s not needed if they remain in place (in cities with rent control). And as people age, they are increasingly less-likely to move (unless it’s to a senior facility).
Says “many” not “most” “a majority of California seniors are homeowners, a notable percentage (however) do not own homes)….
I’d like to see the statistics regarding how many senior citizens in rent-controlled apartments move to a location without rent control (citing housing expense as the reason for their move).
Doesn’t seem to be enough data to answer your question. However, it is noteworthy that only 39 of 482 have implemented local rent control measures.
David says: “Doesn’t seem to be enough data to answer your question.”
My response: Let me help you with that. The answer is likely “NONE”. No senior (and very few non-seniors) move out of rent controlled apartments, citing rising housing expenses as the “reason” for their move.
David says: “However, it is noteworthy that only 39 of 482 have implemented local rent control measures.”
My response: So, maybe that’s a problem – at least for the more-expensive locales.
Research on rent control is mixed at best. Rent control limits how much landlords can raise the rents each year and that benefits long-term tenants.
On the other hand, rent control reduces supply over time and discourages new construction, pushing prices higher – particularly for new clients, but even if rent control limits rental increases to five percent, that could be faster than incomes grow for seniors.
Finally, California voters have overwhelmingly voted against rent control each time it has gone on the ballot and therefore rent control as a solution to affordability is minimal.
David says: “Research on rent control is mixed at best. Rent control limits how much landlords can raise the rents each year and that benefits long-term tenants.”
My response: That’s not a “mixed” result.
David says: “On the other hand, rent control reduces supply over time and discourages new construction, pushing prices higher – particularly for new clients, but even if rent control limits rental increases to five percent, that could be faster than incomes grow for seniors.”
What is the topic/purpose of “affordable housing” for seniors? The two measures I mentioned (Proposition 13 and rent control) effectively prevent seniors from getting priced out of their homes, for owners AND renters. Both of them definitively restrict the cost of housing – especially for seniors.
Of course, these measures would not necessarily benefit a senior “moving to” an expensive location (with the possible exception of Proposition 19, since it allows California seniors to “move” their property tax to a new location).
Are seniors who want to move to the state (into one of the more-expensive locales within the state) the population that we’re supposed to be concerned about?
David says: “Finally, California voters have overwhelmingly voted against rent control each time it has gone on the ballot and therefore rent control as a solution to affordability is minimal.”
My response: There is nothing preventing individual cities from implementing highly-effective rent control for its existing residents. I can assure you that it’s not “minimal” in the cities which have implemented it.
What you’re referring to is entirely different – “vacancy control” (which is irrelevant for seniors and others who remain in place).
I missed this:
David says, “On the other hand, rent control reduces supply over time . . .”
My response: Newly-built construction is generally exempt from local rent control measures to encourage new construction. (Construction which actually isn’t needed in the first place, unless a city is attempting to house non-residents.)
And again, as long as there’s no “vacancy control”, rents are reset to whatever the market will bear when a tenant moves out or dies. (Similar to Proposition 13, in regard to property taxes.)